Without a patent, any demonstration would have made the machine fair game for
copying... if not in the US, then in european countries. The patent cleared in
1906. Should they have flown? Probably. they would have likely sold thier
machines much easier and much sooner. But I can understand thier point of view
as well. Once seen, the machine is very easy to copy. And why would anyone
pay for an original Wright when they could build a copy themselves?

Its easy for us to judge history because we know the outcome and the results of
everyones actions. Its quite a bit harder to figure out things as you go
along. We should also be very careful in assuming that what we think we know
about history is actually correct. I've found (by doing) that a great deal of
recorded information was simply incorrect. Usually because it was recorded
later, or recorded third-hand. The real truth is that no one living was an
actual witness to any of the events or even the machines that we have been
discussing. Whats left of the original aircraft are at this point - restored.
And I've found that a great deal of original information (and parts) gets lost
during well-meaning restorations. So no one today can point to the Wright
1903, or 1905 and say "Yes, that's exactly how it was." Ditto any existing
early Curtiss machines. That's part of what makes historical debate fun, but
its also kind of sad.

Another thing that my project has tought me is that the Wrights, Curtiss,
Chanute, Langley, Avery, Herring, Montgomery, Lilenthal, etc. were all real men
with real talents and real faults. Our histories have a great tendancy to
homoginize thier lives into easily digestable characatures (sp?) and stories.
Real truths are almost always infinately more complicated. And often times,
they reveal things which most people would rather have swept under the rug.
Sometimes our heros turn out to be paranoid geeks. And sometimes they turn out
to be underhanded opportunists. But usually they turn out to be a complex
blend... much like ourselves.